Israel tells U.S. it will respond to Iraqi strike

[NewsGuy]

From Haaretz:

From news article:

Israel has notified the U.S. it would respond to any Iraqi attack, even if there are no casualties, Ha'aretz has learned. Senior Israeli officials have explained to their American counterparts it is important to Israel to maintain its deterrence, and that it would not practice the same kind of restraint it demonstrated in the Gulf War in 1991.

The Americans empathized with the Israeli position, but said that if there are no casualties, Israel should make do with a symbolic response.

[...]

"We do not have an automatic response for every given scenario, but the very statement that Israel will respond this time is important for deterrence," the sources said. If America allows Israel to respond, tight coordination will be required. In 1991, the Americans refused to give Israel the codes that would have enabled the Israeli air force to fly to and operate in Iraq without crashing into American aircraft.

Outgoing chief of the Central Command, Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Eitan, told Channel One TV this weekend that an American attack on Iraq would weaken Palestinian motivation to clash with Israel. The Palestinians depend to a great extent on Iraqi support, and any injury to Iraq would therefore cut into Palestinian resources as well.

[L@mplighterM]

At the moment I hold the opinion that the US will not attack Iraq. Saddam announced that the next war will be fought urban style.

Operation Desert Storm was fought from the air and it was relatively easy to confront the enemy in that manner. In today's atmosphere there's no way that I can visualize the US carpet bombing areas occupied by civilians. At present there isn't adequate justification for such an act in the eyes of the world community (I hold a somewhat different opinion).

An on the ground confrontation with the Iraqis would have devastating consequences for the allied armed forces. In a scenario such as that I would think that the Iraqis have the advantage.

For better or worse the days when a city is leveled by bombing are gone and that shift the advantage to the guerrillas.

Hand to hand combat is going to cost lives a lot of American lives.

The allies could destroy the Iraqi infrastructure but Saddam has shown that he couldn't care less about his people to him they are a disposable commodity that is easily replaced.

[ibrodsky]

I think there would be heavier losses on both sides, but this war is quite winnable. The US just has to be willing to take over most of the country and help Iraqis build a separate gov't and military. Saddam's cities can be blockaded. I suspect that within a few months some brave military officer will kill Saddam... an entire country is not going to commit suicide just to satisfy one megalomaniac.

I also doubt President Bush is going to back down and let Saddam win. We know he is developing weapons of mass destruction. There is no choice but to remove him. The meetings this past week with Iraqi opposition leaders were not just for show.

Debkafile reports that US and Turkish forces have already taken over an airstrip in northern Iraq. This is actually consistent with the idea that Saddam plans to defend his cities and not deploy his army in the open. It also explains why Saddam has been rallying his supporters recently.

I think the war has already started at a low level and we just don't know it... Some of the people urging the US not to attack may be just acting as decoys. Turkey spoke against US action but there is evidence that they have troops in Iraq right now!

[Mediocrates]

The Iraqis may require us to fight hand to hand and as soon as we can fit some hands on a GBU-28 laser guided bomb we will be able to comply. Perhaps they will accept if we paint some hands on the side of a B2 or a Tomahawk cruise missile?

Honestly, our Keyhole satellites know everything that goes on above ground. Everything that moves, flies or can pull a wagon has already been targeted.

[L@mplighterM]

There’s no question in mind that Saddam should be removed from power.

I don’t think this is going to be easy without support from NATO.

There’s no question in mind that Saddam (to some degree) is behind the terrorist attacks in Israel. I fully believe that he has/or is in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, chemical or biological).

Many countries don’t believe that’s the case in other words where’s the evidence.

Urban warfare is extremely difficult this was apparent in Jennin where the IDF faced a militarily inferior enemy and 23 Israeli soldiers lost their lives.

My feeling is that high-level negotiations will take place and UN weapon inspectors will have free access to Iraq.

If I had it my way Baghdad would have disappeared from the map a long time ago but I’m a vanishing species being replaced by peaceniks.

Humanity has reached the level where a simple virus was created in the lab about a month ago and within a few years the scientific know how will exist to make complicated viruses. The boundaries of medical science are becoming limitless and strains that’ll eliminate a good portion of humanity are perhaps less than a decade away.

I can well imagine some rouge regime holding humanity hostage with biological weapons in the future. Jump or die!

Scary!

[Mediocrates]

We can never uninvent something so it's pointless to try. But there is no reason why, if we call something WMD we can't extend our own doctrine of WMD to encompass those new threats. What difference does it make the cause if the response is, through whatever means, a like destruction? What purpose does it serve, in the face of madmen like Saddam to not demostrate our willingness to lay waste to him and his if only to show that it cannot be tolerated?

The world is not so complicated today compared to yesterday that threats are threats and there truly is a difference between a society willing to beat down the thugs who would use our own compassionate hesistation against us? Clearly whether Saddam has WMD capability today or 2 years from now it WILL be threat to the world. All our sanctions have proven is that he has the capacity to survive economic hardship and the gutting of his infrastructure and economy. That only makes it easier for him to prevail if we fight him.

Which leaves only one question: retaliation vs. premptive. I vote for retaliation. No first strike. But make the second strike something that would make all the tyrants blanch. Only a few weeks ago we saw in the news comparisons of the first and second strike casualites estimates between India and Pakistan debated as commonplace events. What if Bagdad was 40% destroyed? What if Saddam then survived and lived to fight another day? Ok remove the other 60% of Bagdad at that point.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Which leaves only one question: retaliation vs. premptive. I vote for retaliation. No first strike. But make the second strike something that would make all the tyrants blanch.

But that means we (either the US or Israel or both) have to sit around waiting for such an attack to take place. Perhaps a retaliatory strike is the best move, but it means the forces have to stay on perpetual high alert (well, maybe they should anyway). What if the move, whatever it is, is so bad that it cripples response ability? Clearly 9/11 was meant to take out the Pentagon and probably the White House, thus destroying US ability to respond. Who's to say what the *next* major strike will do?

========

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think the war has already started at a low level and we just don't know it... Some of the people urging the US not to attack may be just acting as decoys. Turkey spoke against US action but there is evidence that they have troops in Iraq right now!

You could be right. There should be as much surprise as possible, if an attack is to be made.

[L@mplighterM]

Aug. 11, 2002
Hussein: 'Why did you turn against us?'
By THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET STAFF

A British newspaper reports that Saddam Hussein has promised a British parliamentarian that we will give weapons inspectors access to Iraq, Israel Radio reports.

It reports that George Gallaway, a Labor MP, met with the Iraqi leader in an underground bunker near Baghdad.

According to the paper, Saddam said he would implement all UN resolutions on Iraq and admit weapons inspectors without hindrance, the radio said.

In the article it says Saddam asked for better ties with Britain and quotes him as saying, "We don't know why you turned against us more than any other European country."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1028814649909


Hussein has started to kiss western ass. His requests for weapon inspectors to enter his country have escalated during the past several months.

Perhaps a theatre to attack Iraq is slowly moving into place and he’s aware of that fact.
I personally don’t believe that there’s enough support for a strike against Iraq. The logistics for preparing and positioning 100,000 soldiers to attack Iraq without a base in the area seems impossible to me.

Senior Bush should have taken Saddam out more than a decade ago. If the US and NATO weren’t up to the task they should have given Israel the flight codes and have let them drop a nuke on Baghdad in retaliation for the Scuds that were sent their way.

[cerulean]

I think Bush is making well-measured responses here and not tipping his hand, as reported in this article. Impressive.

http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.ps...08101016510042

[L@mplighterM]

Saturday, August 10, 2002
SADDAM ESTABLISHES URBAN WARFARE UNIT

SADDAM ESTABLISHES URBAN WARFARE UNIT
WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has established a new
unit to prevent insurgents from attacking regime interests in major cities.

Iraqi opposition sources said Saddam has established militias in Baghdad
with orders to fire on suspicious people. The sources said a curfew has been
imposed at night in the Iraqi capital.

"In Baghdad, he has distributed weapons, and there are cells in Baghdad with
instructions to impose basically a curfew and to fire upon anybody that is
seen walking in the streets," Iraqi National Congress spokesman Sharif Al
Hussein said.

Opposition sources said Saddam has focused his defensive capabilities in
protecting Baghdad. They said the military would be sheltered in civilian
areas and troops would be ordered to prevent any U.S. ground invasion of the
Iraqi capital.


http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=13145

[L@mplighterM]

Snip from article Cerulean posted a link too above:

...Bush, whose announced policy is to seek Saddam's ouster, said Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction made it an "enemy until proven otherwise." Against a backdrop of Baghdad's consistent refusal to readmit international weapons inspectors, he added, "They obviously desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy."...

When Bush states "enemy until proven otherwise” I interpret that to mean that if Iraq can prove it has no such weapons there will be no attack. Several months ago I posted( on this forum) that Saddam would open his borders to allow unhindered inspections for weapons.
That’s exactly supposedly what’s happening at the moment.
As much as I would like to see Hussein removed from power I don’t think it’ll be done by the US or NATO.

[cerulean]

http://observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,772585,00.html
Kurdish guerrillas poised to fire first shots in war on Iraq

Tim Judah in northern Iraq meets enemies of Saddam who seek to crush Islamist militants with suspected links to al-Qaeda

Sunday August 11, 2002

========
The last few paragraphs are particularly interesting:

The man, Muhammed Mansour Shahab Ali, 27, talks nervously. In an interview with The Observer , he said he met bin Laden four times and carried out three murders for him. The interview was conducted in the presence of PUK officials and there is no way of checking its veracity.

Apart from armaments, Shahab Ali claims that in 2000 he smuggled 30 refrigerator motors, which he believes were filled with a gas, from Iraq to bin Laden.

Given Saddam's use of chemical weapons in Kurdistan, and during the Iran-Iraq war, this raises speculation that Iraq was supplying bin Laden with materials for chemical weapons. Shahab Ali gave no reason why Saddam would want to support al-Qaeda, which has publicly blasted Arab regimes like his.

Shahab Ali's stories, if true, provide an insight into the murky connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq and back US claims of such a link.

========
This article also suggests a Turkish presence in Iraq:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...et=KURDWAR.HTM

Debka is posting even stranger things. Take both sources with a grain of salt (I know nothing about the strategypage one, and Debka is far from completely accurate).

[cerulean]

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_08_09b.html

U.S.: Israel had better intelligence on Iraq's super weapons

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, August 6, 2002
The United States has acknowledged that Israel obtained far more intelligence information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

U.S. officials said Israel's Mossad knew more about Iraq's nuclear weapons program throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. The officials said the CIA acknowledged this after the 1991 Gulf war, Middle East Newsline reported.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Israeli intelligence superiority led to the decision by the Jewish state to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. At the time, the Reagan administration deplored the Israeli strike and withheld weapons shipments to Israel.

"It is damn lucky that the Israelis took out the Iraqi nuclear capability when they did because they were years ahead of our best estimates, as we found out in Desert Storm [in 1991]," Rumsfeld said on Aug. 2.

After the Gulf war, U.S. officials said Iraq was about a year away from completing its nuclear weapons programs. They said this disproved previous assessments that Baghdad was nearly a decade away from nuclear bombs. . . .

[Mediocrates]

....sharp point of the spear...always was, always will be.....

[L@mplighterM]

Snips from translated article:

The US Defense Department has signed a multi million dollar contract with Maersk. The shipping company will be shipping tanks, ammunition, ambulances, etc. to the same base used in the Gulf War.
It?s estimated that the delivery will take up to seven months to ship the supplies to the base.


Article:


http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=227867